Walt Disney Pictures' soon-to-be-released film "John Carter," directed by Pixar's Andrew Stanton, is dedicated to Apple co-founder Steve Jobs because Stanton didn't want too much time to pass without giving him "permanent acknowledgment."

The closing credits of "John Carter," which arrives in theaters March 9, will feature a card with the text: "Dedicated to the Memory of Steve Jobs, an Inspiration to Us All," /Film reported on Tuesday. The live-action film follows the titular character's adventures on Mars and is based on the "Barsoom" series by author Edgar Rice Burroughs.

According to the report, Stanton explained both the pragmatic and personal reasons for the dedication at a recent press junket. On the practical side, he pointed out that the production "just happened to be, sadly, the first production up that was Disney that wanted to give [a dedication]" to Jobs, while noting that he "personally wanted to" as well.

Jobs had maintained a good working relationship with Disney during his career, especially after the conglomerate purchased Pixar, the animation studio that he co-founded, for $7.4 billion in 2006. The deal made Jobs the largest Disney shareholder and also earned him a spot on the company's board. After he died last October at age 56, his stake in the company was placed into a trust to be managed by his wife.

Stanton did point out that a more personal dedication to Jobs will come with the next Pixar movie, as the Pixar team are "the real family member" for him. "Brave," the next feature film from Pixar, is scheduled for release later this year. Stanton himself was brought on as Pixar's second animator in 1990 and went on to direct the studio's award-winning "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E" films. He has described himself as being "loaned" to Disney in order to work on the "John Carter" project.

The director said he had talked to colleague John Lasseter, who serves as Chief Creative Officer at both Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios, first before dedicating "John Carter" to Jobs, as he feared that it might steal some thunder from Pixar's plans. He also revealed that he had talked to Jobs' wife about it.

"But it felt right just cause I didn’t want too much time to pass without giving him some sort of permanent acknowledgement," he said of the decision.

Stanton also said that, while working on the "John Carter" set, he was often asked what Pixar was like and what made it special. After trying out several long explanations as to why the company ran different from other studios, he decided to just shorten his answer to: "Steve. Steve's why."

Working in Hollywood has given Stanton a greater appreciation for Jobs' role in protecting the animation studio. According to him, Jobs worked to "firewall" Pixar from the dysfunctional aspects of the industry.

"We knew he had, but he had truly firewalled us and protected us from all the bad influences of the outside world and we had just been raised in this little eden in San Francisco and had no clue how bad it could be. And so I really have to give so much more credit to him than I ever was, even though I always was, of how much he was a major factor for Pixar," he said.

Agreed. It's weird especially with a director with a track record of Stanton. Nemo and Walle were both fantastic movies so I'll give this a chance

It's possible it may not be good, but it does look promising. I think the problem will be that the John carter books have been ripped off for years by An endless list of sci if movies. So the white ape scene will be claimed to be a rip off of revenge of the Jedi, etc.

Point granted, but I think he has good reason to expect this movie to be horrible. In my experience, when a movie trailer is incredibly heavy on action sequences while the plot or general story conceit is in no way discernible, the movie is horrible. A few recent examples: Green Lantern, Transformers 2 and 3, any Saw movie, the latest crap Dwayne "the rock" adventure movie, etc... If I knew of a less crass way to do it, I'd literally bet fifty dollars the John Carter movie will fail to score 60% on rotten tomatoes...as it is, there's really no way to make good on that bet, considering the forum.

As I said, however: point granted. It might be brilliant. I think the odds are against it.

What I have found interesting is all of the people who are predicting the movie will bomb.

If you consider that the average age of the target audience is probably about a third of the likely average age of this forum's posters, and then go to see the many trailers it becomes less strange. It is obviously an effects driven movie and the trailers don't do the apparent story line nor acting any favours.

If you consider that the average age of the target audience is probably about a third of the likely average age of this forum's posters, and then go to see the many trailers it becomes less strange. It is obviously an effects driven movie and the trailers don't do the apparent story line nor acting any favours.

Even with that in mine one can't definitely say that the movie won't be good, won't be enjoyable, won't have certain elements and aspects that are appreciated from an artistic or technical point of view, or that it will bomb, a term I assume is referring to not being able to recoup its financial investment.

Really all one can say is they are not interested, it doesn't look good, or any number of similarity stated comments that suppose something on a basis of assumed probability.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Stanton has never directed a live action picture before this, and as he hints at in his remarks, working with a huge group of technicians and union guys and cast people and functionaries on location with a studio breathing down your neck is a pretty far cry from having the kind of complete creative control a Pixar movie affords.

There's a kind of locomotive quality to a big effects heavy action movie. It just lumbers down the track whether there's anyone at the throttle or not. For someone who has never had the experience of having to act as general to a surly army that will run riot at the first sign of weakness. it wouldn't be surprising to find that little of his personal style made it to the screen.

I mean, maybe he pulled it off, but I'm not particularly optimistic. Of course, another Pixar alum, Brad Bird, apparently did a pretty credible job with a freaking Mission Impossible movie, so I guess it's not out of the question. It's just that even under ideal conditions, Disney has a track record of making utterly soulless action movies that seem to have been crafted with no human intervention.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Well then I hope it doesn't suck. No, but seriously, I hope it doesn't. Steve's memory doesn't require any movie tribute. While the careers of many Pixar folks like Stanton and Lassiter owe much to him, the come back of the Mac and Apple brand world wide is the finest way to remember him.

Of course, another Pixar alum, Brad Bird, apparently did a pretty credible job with a freaking Mission Impossible movie, so I guess it's not out of the question. It's just that even under ideal conditions, Disney has a track record of making utterly soulless action movies that seem to have been crafted with no human intervention.

That was surprisingly well rounded for an action movie. It has more feeling and depth that the other three and despite the impossibleness of the gadgets and circumstances it never lulled or overstepped its reach in any way. I was impressed.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

That was surprisingly well rounded for an action movie. It has more feeling and depth that the other three and despite the impossibleness of the gadgets and circumstances it never lulled or overstepped its reach in any way. I was impressed.

Really an amazing achievement, for the reasons I mention above. Directing something like Mission Impossible is a monumental undertaking, one that requires knowing exactly what you want to achieve and how to go about it, while relying on the skills of literally hundreds of specialists-- many of whom are cynical old pros that are quick to undermine a novice if they think that novice is in over their head. And you have to knock that shit out every day, hugely elaborate set-ups and fantastically complex logistical nightmares that just keep coming, or fall behind and start costing the studio money. That Bird, with no prior live action experience, could step in and pull off a by all accounts excellent chapter in the series speaks to his vision as an artist and fortitude as a leader.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Point granted, but I think he has good reason to expect this movie to be horrible. In my experience, when a movie trailer is incredibly heavy on action sequences while the plot or general story conceit is in no way discernible, the movie is horrible. A few recent examples: Green Lantern, Transformers 2 and 3, any Saw movie, the latest crap Dwayne "the rock" adventure movie, etc... If I knew of a less crass way to do it, I'd literally bet fifty dollars the John Carter movie will fail to score 60% on rotten tomatoes...as it is, there's really no way to make good on that bet, considering the forum.

As I said, however: point granted. It might be brilliant. I think the odds are against it.

All fair points, but I remember people saying things like that about Iron Man when it came out, and it turned out to be pretty good. I am looking forward to John Carter. I'm a younger sci-fi fan (25), but the history always interests me. And anyone who's ever watched Friday Night Lights (the tv show) will tell you that Taylor kitsch is a hell of an actor. I hope the writing and choreography are good so this can be his breakout movie.

I for one am very enthusiastic about the movie. I actually read the book (E.R. Burroughs: A Princess of Mars) some time ago and loved it. It was written almost 100 years ago and it indeed has all the things in it that are visible in the movie trailer. There is no rip-off here. This is the real deal, the original. The trailer looks awesome, very similar to how I imagined this fantasy world while reading the book.

By the way, for those who don't know E.R. Burroughs: he is better known as the creator of Tarzan. The John Carter books came first but the Tarzan series made Burroughs real famous.

It's being released in March, not summer and not Christmas. This is usually not a good sign. If Disney thought it could go toe to toe with, say, Prometheus, they would release it in May, June or July.

The studios are really suffering, all one has to do is to go to a movie theater on a Friday or Saturday night and see new release playing to quarter full houses or less. The old strategie will not keep a studio afloat, instead of competeing they need to release when competition doesn't exist. The need to maximize the number of people through the gate has never been greater, you can't do that if you run against competition that can't fill the theaters either.

In many ways the movie industry is a lot like Kodak, so stuck in their ways that they can't get past the old ways. The old ways being every rising ticket prices, high paid actors and other costly practices. The industry is being beaten by alternatives they have never had to deal with that are for more cost effective for the consumer. I wouldn't be surprised to see many studios going the way of Kodak, chapter 11 or even 13. They need to adjust their business models to enable reasonable pricing and profotability for the theaters.

Just saw the trailer for it. Yikes. That looks awful. Usually the trailer makes a movie look better than it is not the other way around so not a good sign. I guess we'll see soon enough.

I think I've seen two different trailers now in theaters and frankly neither where inspiring. However I think the target audience is probably 35 years younger than I. In my case I will likely go see it no matter what, I'm itching for some fresh SciFI movie content.

Even with that in mine one can't definitely say that the movie won't be good, won't be enjoyable, won't have certain elements and aspects that are appreciated from an asrtiic or technical point of view, or that it will bomb, a term I assume is referring to not being able to recoup its financial investment.

Really all one can say is they are not interested, it doesn't look good, or any number of similarity stated comments that suppose that something on a basis of assumed probability.

Absolutely agree. If you have the ability to predict when a film will bomb or become a blockbuster you have a very bright future indeed! And a good story is not necessarily a good indicator of success, critical or financial. In fact my idea of a good story seems of little importance for my kids, great acting seemingly even less so, to my chagrin. But judging from the trailers I am not expecting this to be a hugely interesting movie for myself.

Absolutely agree. If you have the ability to predict when a film will bomb or become a blockbuster you have a very bright future indeed! And a good story is not necessarily a good indicator of success, critical or financial. In fact my idea of a good story seems of little importance for my kids, great acting seemingly even less so, to my chagrin. But judging from the trailers I am not expecting this to be a hugely interesting movie for myself.

I remember a trailer that made my Wife and I want to go see a nice feel good comedy... that trailer was for Leaving Las Vegas.

Stanton has never directed a live action picture before this, and as he hints at in his remarks, working with a huge group of technicians and union guys and cast people and functionaries on location with a studio breathing down your neck is a pretty far cry from having the kind of complete creative control a Pixar movie affords.

There's a kind of locomotive quality to a big effects heavy action movie. It just lumbers down the track whether there's anyone at the throttle or not. For someone who has never had the experience of having to act as general to a surly army that will run riot at the first sign of weakness. it wouldn't be surprising to find that little of his personal style made it to the screen.

I mean, maybe he pulled it off, but I'm not particularly optimistic. Of course, another Pixar alum, Brad Bird, apparently did a pretty credible job with a freaking Mission Impossible movie, so I guess it's not out of the question. It's just that even under ideal conditions, Disney has a track record of making utterly soulless action movies that seem to have been crafted with no human intervention.

He has an excellent track record with an excellent movie studio. Personally, I'm willing to give it a shot.

I wish people would stop living their lives through Jobs, and get a life of their own (as he advised).

Yeah, because this is the 1st time in history that a movie has been dedicated to someone, right? God forbid.

If it wasn't for SJ, Disney would not be what it is now. Jobs was a major factor in the founding and success of Pixar, and then he went ahead and brokered the Disney's purchase of Pixar. The company owes him a hell of alot.

I wish people would stop living their lives through Jobs, and get a life of their own (as he advised).

In a way I agree. This sounds like they did it simply to do it. Instead of waiting for a Pixar film or such. It's like they figured they would get bad PR if they didn't mention him with the very next film and something about that irks me. Steve was a guy that didn't believe in hyping his or Apple's good works and making an act about getting your name on something. I think if they wanted to do something to honor Steve they could have done more than just his name on a movie. He was about growing tech and education, how about some kind of internship program for aspiring animators, maybe try to get Apple involved either with funding or maybe training (or both). That seems like more of what Steve would want.

In a way I agree. This sounds like they did it simply to do it. Instead of waiting for a Pixar film or such. It's like they figured they would get bad PR if they didn't mention him with the very next film and something about that irks me. Steve was a guy that didn't believe in hyping his or Apple's good works and making an act about getting your name on something. I think if they wanted to do something to honor Steve they could have done more than just his name on a movie. He was about growing tech and education, how about some kind of internship program for aspiring animators, maybe try to get Apple involved either with funding or maybe training (or both). That seems like more of what Steve would want.

Why wait for a Pixar film? Pixar owns Disney and Steve's widow is Disney's largest shareholder. It's also his first release since Jobs's passing. It makes perfect sense to do it now.

And it's not like they didn't know each other. They would have likely met by 1990 or 1991 at the latest. That's 20 years and a lot of films. You can't convince that Jobs didn't have this guy's contact information in his phone. Jobs directly influential in this guy's career.

Have we forgotten that Toy Story was Pixar's first feature length film? It was hugely popular, profitable and changed the film industry for this type of movie making forever. It was a milestone release... and Stanton wrote it.

Stanton is in the middle.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

The studios are really suffering, all one has to do is to go to a movie theater on a Friday or Saturday night and see new release playing to quarter full houses or less. The old strategie will not keep a studio afloat, instead of competeing they need to release when competition doesn't exist. The need to maximize the number of people through the gate has never been greater, you can't do that if you run against competition that can't fill the theaters either.

Well, not right now. The studios (and theaters) more than make up for it in the summer season.
Your point is well taken, but that has nothing to do with how decisions get made in Hollywood. Movies are very seasonal, so studios always schedule them for release so that their strongest films will go in the summer season, then Christmas season, with weaker films being scheduled at other times of the year. Oscars contenders usually screen in the fall, close to the time the Academy starts voting. It's really about maximizing gains. The TV network do the same with their shows.

BTW, "strong" or "weak" in this sense has little to do with whether the movie is good or not (it's a matter of personal and critical taste), but solely how well its studio thinks it will do at the box office relative to competing films.

I'm a huge Pixar fan and well aware of Stanton's accomplishments, but directing animated features, particularly in the Pixar environment, is a different kind of experience from directing a live action film, particularly an effects laden blockbuster.

When Stanton felt that a sequence in WALL-E, for instance, wasn't working, he could sit in a conference room with his artists and watch rough clips that could be reworked in real time. You're only a render away from completely reworking a scene. Vocal talent sits in comfortable studios down the hall from your office and you can record take after take with no more wear and tear than bringing in hot tea or having the kitchen make up some sushi.

Compare that to the hair-pulling contingencies of live action (even heavily CG and green screen live action). It takes space, and time, and real people who have to coordinate schedules. Huge amounts of finicky, expensive equipment must be deployed, operated and struck, over and over again, every day. It would be like trying to make a Pixar movie if you had to haul all your servers and workstations around and set them up out of a truck and run them on generators, and then get your work done while the light was still good or the crew wasn't into overtime.

Just a different deal, is all. Pixar has done wonderful things, and I don't regard live action as better or more authentic, but it's just a fact going out and capturing your images through a camera lens is a fundamentally different kind of endeavor than generating your images via software.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.